Motorola Mobility submitted a brief filing to the ITC, which reads, “Motorola hereby moves to terminate all claims in this investigation without prejudice, based on Motorola’s withdrawal of the complaint, with Motorola and Apple each bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees. There are no agreements between Motorola Mobility and Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), written or oral, express or implied, concerning the subject matter of this investigation. Respondent Apple Inc. and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations Staff Attorney have confirmed that they do not oppose this motion.”

In August, Motorola Mobility alleged that Apple’s Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) mobile features, including the Siri voice-recognition program, violated its patents. The company filed a patent infringement complaint against the iPhone maker, involving seven patents with the ITC. Motorola asked the court to ban the import of iPhone, iPad, and Mac computers to the United States, since the products are manufactured in China.

Back then, Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc (NYSE:MMI) said Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) was unwilling to work with the company on a license to resolve the issue, which compelled the company to file a lawsuit to defend its engineer’s innovations. On September 18, the ITC decided to launch a formal investigation on certain Apple iPhones, iPads, and personal computers in response to the complaint filed by Motorola Mobility.

Prior to the ITC decision, Motorola lost a patent lawsuit against Apple in Germany, involving the rubber-banding feature.

Florian Mueller, of Foss Patents, suggested that Motorola is possibly negotiating to settle its global patent disputes with Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL). He also noted that Google’s Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) mobile subsidiary had difficulty in compiling all the required documents related to the patents involved in the case. He also theorized, “Maybe Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc (NYSE:MMI) realized that it proceeded too hastily with its initial complaint and that this could be outcome-determinative in Apple’s favor, especially with a very strict judge such as Mr. Essex.”